Back
2019 Supreme(Guj) 617
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, A.P. THAKER, JJ.
Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jai Singh – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 686, 241, 697, 688 of 2019, R/Special Civil Application No. 50 of 2013, Civil Application No. 1, 6, 7, 8 of 2019, Special Civil Application No. 50, 9563 of 2013
Decided On : 25-10-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Kamal Trivedi, Senior Advocate, Ramnandan Singh, G.M. Joshi, Kaushal D. Pandya, Prashant Desai, Senior Advocate, Rutul P. Desai and Archana U. Amin
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 309 - Appeals have filed Clause of Letters Patent Appeal against common judgment and order in Special Civil Application - Judge has quashed and set aside Clause of Promotion Policy of contained in Circular has decided to count residency period for promotion by taking into account deputation period rendered in organization followed by permanent absorption and directed said Corporation to consider case of original petitioners by holding a review departmental promotion committee and grant promotion to petitioners to post of Managers as case may be with all consequential benefits - Aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order passed by Judge Corporation has preferred Letters Patent Appeal in Special Civil Application - Judge has passed common judgment and order in Special Civil Application with all these appeals are arising out same common judgment and order all these appeals are being heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common order - Controversy in matters are same facts of Letters Patent Appeal arising out of Special Civil Application are taken as lead matter - It is pertinent to note that pending these appeals concerned appellants have moved applications for interim stay of impugned judgment and order of Judge - Held, Court Chances of promotion are not conditions of service but negation of even chance of promotion certainly amounts to variation in conditions of service attracting infraction of Articles Constitution of India - No employee has a right to particular position in seniority list but all employees have a right to seniority since same forms basis of promotion - An employee has always an interest to seniority and a right to be considered for promotion - If after integration only chances of promotion are affected it would have been only a case of heartburn of an individual or a few individuals which is only to be ignored as held by this Court in Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association and other State of Tamil Nadu and others - Court was felt that constitution of an independent cadre was in public interest and therefore merger took place - Apex Court has observed that since this was essentially a matter of policy scope of review by the Court is limited. However Court can examine grievance relating to unequal being treated as equals and grievance relating to losing promotional avenues – Appeal allowed (Paras 26 and 28)
JUDGMENT :
A.P. Thaker, J.
1. All these Letters Patent Appeals have filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the common judgment and order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 50 of 2013 with Special Civil Application No. 9563 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside Clause 8(b) of the Promotion Policy of 2012 contained in the Circular No. HQ/HR/3/Prom. Pol./13 dated 24.04.2012 by which Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter be referred to as "the Corporation") has decided to count "residency period" for promotion by taking into account the deputation period rendered in the organization followed by permanent absorption and directed the said Corporation to consider the case of the original petitioners by holding a review departmental promotion committee and grant promotion to the petitioners to the post of Managers w.e.f. 19.11.2012/01.01.2013 as the case may be with all consequential benefits.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order 26.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, the Corporation has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 241 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 50 of 2013 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 686 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 9563 of 2013. Whereas, the original respondents No. 5 to 7 have preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 688 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 50 of 2013 and original respondents No. 3 to 4 have preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 689 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 9563 of 2013. Whereas, persons who have not been shown as party respondents in main petition being Special Civil Application No. 9563 of 2013 have preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 697 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No. 9563 of 2013.
3. Considering the facts that the learned Single Judge has passed the common judgment and order in Special Civil Application No. 50 of 2013 with Special Civil Application No. 9563 of 2013, all these appeals are arising out the same common judgment and order, all these appeals are being heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common order.
4. Considering the fact that the controversy in the matters are the same, the facts of Letters Patent Appeal No. 241 of 2019 arising out of Special Civil Application No. 50 of 2013 are taken as lead matter. It is pertinent to note that pending these appeals, the concerned appellants have moved applications for interim stay of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. After hearing both the sides, this Court vide order dated 18.03.2019 has passed the order staying the operation of the impugned judgment and order, wherein, the observation was made to the effect that it would open for all those, who are likely to be affected, on account of the consideration and decision of these matters, to come forward being heard in the present proceedings and appellant was directed to circulate this order and place it on the notice board so that all interested persons are likely to affect may note of it and take steps for joining. On such direction, number of persons have come forward for joining party and accordingly, in each of the petition, the persons, who are likely to be affected to the decision, approached this Court and all the applications have been allowed and, therefore, all the cases, certain more other persons have joined as party respondents.
5. Heard Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned senior counsel with Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 241 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 50 of 2013 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 686 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 9563 of 2013, Mr. K.K. Shah, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 688 of 2019 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 689 of 2019, Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned counsel with Mr. I.G. Joshi, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to
